The point I was trying to make is that the text of the proposed rule doesn't tell the real story. Interesting to read, especially the part that makes it clear that Congress has written the rule so that it is conveniently vague as to who exactly it applies to and, of course, there is no provision for any kind of oversight.
ACA as originally written and passed raised the health care costs of most members of congress and their staff. Does anyone still believe that the Pelosi and Reid didn't force a vote on this legislation before most even had a chance to read it?
BTW, neither of your links are valid.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., icarlosdanger <no_reply@...> wrote:
Duh--
was the motivator!
quote:
"Last week, when President Barack Obama came to the Hill to meet with Senate Democrats, he informed them that he would personally get involved to sort out the confusion, and the White House said that OPM would issue guidelines this week."
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:
The text of the proposed rule does not explain any of the motivation behind the proposed rule.
